Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refused vehicle crossover application because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly assess her application for a vehicle crossover. She says it has refused her application despite her property meeting the published criteria.
2. Miss X also says the Council failed to take into account the fact she was pregnant when she made her application. Nor has it considered the additional difficulties that not being able to park near her home has caused her. She also says she now experiences the same difficulties now she has a young baby.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council refused Miss X’s application for a vehicle crossover as her property did not meet the minimum depth measurement and it is within 10 metres of a junction. This is in line with the Council’s published cropped kerb policy.
7. Miss X says the Council has refused to consider the fact she has extended the hardstanding so it now exceeds the minimum depth. She also says the junction referred to by the Council is a private side vehicle access and not a public highway. Therefore it should not be considered as a junction.
8. The Council confirms officers visited the site. They are satisfied the property is within 10 metres of a junction, even if it is a private access road.
9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide whether the private access road forms a junction with the road where Miss X lives. This is a matter for the Council to decide.
10. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong just because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
11. In this case, the Council has considered Miss X’s circumstances, including the area of hardstanding and the location of her home. It has then considered its policy and has, in line with that policy, rejected her application. While Miss X may disagree with the Council’s decision, it has been made with reference to the relevant policy and following an application of the policy.
12. Miss X says the Council failed to consider that she was disabled due to pregnancy when she made her application. However, while pregnancy is a protected characteristic, it is not considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010. This means the Council cannot discriminate against someone because they are pregnant. It does not mean the Council must consider not to apply its published criteria.
13. As the decision-making process has been completed properly, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to refuse her application to justify our investigation into the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her application for a vehicle crossover to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman